Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: i4004 Date: Oct 4, 2004 12:08pm
Forum: movies Subject: why not wmv as a format/codec

i'm looking at your archive, and i see nice and interesting things...but all encoded in unfriendly way for me (56k modem user)

and even for other users on other (faster) connections, usage of qucktime codecs/system is a waste of bitrate (why spend 70mb if there is a possibility to do same thing in 40mb, or so)

wmencoder9 is a free-software, so what stopping you from using it?
at the moment, wmv9 is the best lo-bitrate codec available, and i can prove this easily.
(and i already did in posts like this
http://virtualdub.everwicked.com/index.php?s=9059e0a1c6b16907adb19c3d28f6d5bc&act=ST&f=3&t=7153

and realvideo9/10 can't compete with wmv's image sharpness...quicktime's codecs quality is way bellow realvideo, let alone wmv9...)

hell, i would encode these episodes for you, without any charge.
(send me dvd's with mpeg's and i'll send you dvd's back...but with wmv's on them...
i'll even pay for dvdr media and shipping.
yes, i'm talking about computer chronicles; i saw few episodes long time ago here in croatia
i would like to see more, but i can't if all you have is quicktime..and i think few other 56k users don't feel so comfortable with so big dloads... )

thanks

cheers

/ivo



This post was modified by i4004 on 2004-10-04 19:06:45

This post was modified by i4004 on 2004-10-04 19:07:38

This post was modified by i4004 on 2004-10-04 19:08:19

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Blenda Date: Oct 5, 2004 8:21am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

Maybe WMV gives smaller files, but the Internet really relies on open standards. I can't encode WMV with free software, because of that I can't endorse the format.

Maybe Theora isn't that great right now, but I really think it will be better when it gets more mature.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thyrr Date: Oct 4, 2004 3:15pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

Minor point: WMV is free to use *only if* you're running Windows.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: i4004 Date: Oct 5, 2004 3:05am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

so one should avoid windows even if it's making streams with higher efficiency of bandwidth?

and it's not win only; it runs on mac too ()
i inspected header of the movie portion i got, yes, it was made with ffmpeg.
and yes, quality sucks big time!
(mpeg4 is not a codec for streaming over lo-bandwidth connections..or for encoding at sub 320kbit/s, for that matter... )

people, did IA encoding folks even cared to read this
http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/legal.php
?
only thing that saves you (from mpeg la) is that you're not profit driven organization (but even so , they can sue you for usage of mpeg4 unlicensed encoder..if they want to!), but that doesn't help my 56k modem at all.
my modem just sees waste of bitrate via mpeg4.
(there is no mpeg4 codec that can do very low bitrates in a nice way, and there never was such mpeg4 codec)


why don't you just ask microsoft to donate one copy of win2000 and then get wmencoder9 and that's it.
problem solved.
(although it's hard to believe that IA doesn't have a single win machine)
or, why not get realvideo encoder for linux
http://www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LinuxTutorialRealVideoStreaming.html
http://licensekey.realnetworks.com/rnforms/products/servers/eval/index.html?ulf=b

ok, i said enough;
do whatever you like, but be aware that you're wasting bandwidth if you're using mpeg4 in a time of wmv9(or rv10).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Roland Wolf Date: Oct 4, 2004 8:09pm
Forum: movies Subject: Theora from xiph.org

today there is only one really free video format on this planet: Theora from xiph.org .
Theora encoding and decoding is available for free on all platforms. Theora also promotes creative common movies. Theora would be a fantastic format for archive.org as soon as the codecs are more common on user machines. Prelinger Archives may also decide to offer Theora movies right now to support a free standard. The world suffered from proprietary text formats for decades. Every help to make videos free is valuable.

Roland Wolf

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: i4004 Date: Oct 5, 2004 3:03am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Theora from xiph.org

theora has *only* one problem; quality is not good at all.

and btw. another totally free video codec is mpeg1, and i bet i can make mpeg1 (with quenc or mencoder or ffmpeg) that looks better than theora on same bitrate.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Blenda Date: Oct 5, 2004 8:48am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Theora from xiph.org

I guess that depends on which quality settings you choose. The CC spots availible on theora.org looks great IMHO.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: simon c Date: Oct 5, 2004 3:37am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Theora from xiph.org

We were actually talking to the Theora folks at one point, and are still interested in perhaps adding it as an additional format, but unfortunately haven't had the time or resources to sort it out just yet.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: akb Date: Oct 4, 2004 12:38pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

The Computer Chronicles aren't encoded in Quicktime, they are encoded in Mpeg4. Quicktime just happens to be the player on your system registered to play that type of file.

The reason the IA encodes to mpeg4 is that it is an independent standard, unlike Windows Media which is proprietary.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: i4004 Date: Oct 4, 2004 1:54pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

do you honestly believe these guys
[ http://www.mpegla.com/index2.cfm ]
would agree with you how mpeg4 "is an independent standard"?

if you're encoding to mpeg4 (of any form or way) without paying to mpeg-la (read this as "using an encoder which was not payed for"), you're breaking the law.
if you're using opensource encoders (ffmpeg, mencoder, or whatever) you are breaking the law, as no opensource codec payed the license for the patents it used in production of the encoder.

on the other hand, wmv9 is free to use.
and it is more efficient than anything anybody else can offer (especially opensource).

now, i'm asking you this;
you have two offers; one is a freeware that looks excellent, and another is payware that looks much worse; you are telling me that you feel fine by picking the latter?

and how is wmv9 "dependant"?
dependant on what?
you have encoder and you have a player?
how can you be more "independant"?
microsoft won't sue you for usage of wmv9 encoder, but mpegla MAY sue you if you didn't payed for encoder.
now, you payed for encoder?
why if you can have better freeware encoder?


wmv9 it is "proprietary" in a same manner mpeg4 patents are, but there is a diference; wmv is freeware and mpeg4 is not!

now, tell me have you compared realvideo9/10 and wmv9 to your encoder, and can you say that your encoder has better efficiency?
(realvideo is freeware too)
if not, why not and why are people wasting bandwidth via unefficient mpeg4 encoders?
because you are running linux?

i'm interested in seeing better quality and smaller files from your web-site, and i don't care what os you're running; i just came to say it is a mistake (from a perspective of one video encoding enthusiast) to use mpeg4 when wmv9 is available (for free).

you may hate microsoft and all, but they made best lo-bitrate codec.(it's not best medium or high bitrate codec, for sure, but on lo-bitrates nothing beats it today)

so what is your excuse to 56k modem folks?
(no, broadband is not available to me!)

i just got a portion of one of your "_64kb" files, but i don't understand: combined bitrate is 18,2kB/s ie 144kbit/s, and you have devoted half of the bitrate to sound alone.(do i need hi-fi for a human voice? no, i don't. 48khz stereo for "computer chronicles"?)

i don't know who is encoding your videos, and why is he using the tools he does, but these are suboptimal, to say the least.

please, test few more encoders, and pick the better one.

thanks for listening

/ivo

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: yehaa Date: Oct 8, 2004 5:51pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

Greetings...
I just had to say..

The point of codecs, is after all, their purpose.
Do you want to look at them quickly, or archive your favourites for your own shelf?
I for one, downloaded gigs of movies whilst still on 56k using DAP, and turned the SVHS quality files (the mpg2 version files made available here) into quite respectable DVD's.
I could download a gig a week on 56 k.
This site was set up years ago, b4 wmv was improved as a format.
I can only reiterate what an enormous undertaking this all is. I think we are probably lucky some of the films are in DivX or mpg4 equivalent at all.
In my opinion, Mpg1 might be obsolete (for instant viewing quality) compared to say, wmv, but what are you going to do every time technology makes a leap?
The people behind "the Archive" have to make decisions about the movie templates that affect 2000 archived files.
I could take a guess that there are prob 2 or 3 people that are actually hands-on creating the files; redoing the lot again could be akin to Water Torture!

Maybe it could get to a stage, whereby an online forum like this might vote on the next movie template, from a choice of codec options from demos that could be supplied.

regards
Adrian

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Cey Date: Oct 9, 2004 3:08am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

I'm new to this archive, and I don't want to cause any waves or such.

And I too am glad this place is around!

Considering this is an Archive place, the only formats they should support are open ones that you can be sure will still exist in 10, 20 or even more years from now. Regardless of what operating system you are using now and what you will be using then.

It'd be nice if Theora or the BBC's Dirac codecs were fully developed, but they aren't. Theora is getting closer, but it's not ready for a place like this.

That really leaves Mpeg-1, Mpeg-2, and Mpeg-4. And maybe a few others.

Mpeg-1 isn't really appropriate anymore, since it does such poor quality. It's just not realistic to watch a full movie in mpeg-1. But everybody can read it.

Mpeg-2 is certainly the most common. But due to the patents and licensing issues, many many people don't have a mpeg-2 decoder and probably never will. Still, today's best mpeg-2 encoders are much much better than they were just a few years ago. They've been very highly tuned and can get comparable quality in much less space than a few years ago.

Mpeg-4 is slightly better than mpeg-2 (25% to 50% improvement perhaps), but it's real advantage is that people today and tommorrow can get free decoders to actually watch the movies.

Divx & Xvid, while based on mpeg-4, aren't a completely normal standard. And their preference for doing .avi files can be annoying at time. Still, they will likely be around for many years to come.

WMV, while also based somewhat on mpeg-4, isn't standard either. They are trying to make it a 'standard', but it's not really going to be an open standard. And since it is based on mp4, it doesn't really have great advantage over mpeg4. Until it does become a fully open official standard, and show some significant advantage over existing mpeg4, I don't think it should be considered.

(I'm not aware of any independant test that shows WMV to be significantly better than mpeg4. Microsoft might have a few, but those would be highly suspect. Just like their old audio claims were.)

To me, if it's not an official standard, with open specs, and in a format readily available to everybody, then it shouldn't even be considered for use in an archive.

And unless the new format offers some substantial advantage over older formats, I don't see any reason to switch.

Some places use proprietary stuff. Often old "Real" video formats. (Library of Congress, for example.) It can be annoying to the end user having to deal with a proprietary format. And that'll only get worse as time passes.

As for streaming... It looks like the mp4 streams are doing okay.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: i4004 Date: Oct 10, 2004 12:42pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

all of you saying that mpeg2 and mpeg4 are "open" standards, please consider this post
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=f43262827ae03bd99173fb6b9fd06c84&threadid=83620
(look at akupenguin's post (ie a 2nd post in the thread) he is linux-video developer...)

cey, you're very poorly informed person, to say the least; if you're into digital video at all, you'll use wmencoder9 and compare it to mpeg's...
you don't need to listen to me or anyone, just do your own tests; untill you do you can't say if wmv is better or worse than mpeg4.

i already said; wmv is freeware, mpeg2/4 are not, so it beats me why some of you persist in calling mpeg2/4 "open standards"...
if something become widely popular (mpeg's) that doesn't mean it's open, or free or, or...
(reinspect the mpegla page i linked previously)
you can't run wmencoder on linux?
is this a surprise?
i can't find a semi-decent .mp4 directshow file-splitter for windows, so these .mp4 files are decoded via quick-time, which is crap.
so where is your compatibility now?
do you think .mp4 files are decoded by default on win?
(let us be honest; most of PC users are running windows)

to put this into prespective, i'm on 56k modem AND i'm paying by the hour.
if i was paying subscription only, sure i wouldn't mind dloading all nights.

i mean even if these files are far from what can be achieved today, i would still get them.
some video is better than no video.
(but for example, episode i wanted to dload was 114kbit/s clip that looks awfull, has commercials, and is 30mb; did anybody hear somebody actually paying money to watch commercials? (which is what would i be doing if i dload that stuff))

but OK, by now i figured out that this free archive runs on linux and it will stay that way.
and i won't get these episodes.
life goes on.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Cey Date: Oct 11, 2004 8:18am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

"open standard" and "free" and "patent free" aren't the same thing.

That doom9 link you gave was about being open-source and patent free. That's *very* different from being an open standard. And although Theora sounds great, it's not ready for major usage. The admins hear are indeed aware of it.

mpeg2 & mpeg4 are open standards. They are official standards. They aren't free (although distributors may make them freely available to consumers, such as divx, quicktime, etc. etc. have done.) The specs are fully available to anybody who wants it. (Which is the difference between an open and a closed standard.) And one vendor's version of mpeg1/2/4 will work with another vendor's version of mpeg1/2/4. (Provided you do the same container. Divx likes avi files where as the standard container is actually .mp4)

WMV can't claim it's open or a standard. And it's not free either, except in the sense they put the stuff on windows for *consumers* to use. To do something else (ie: commercial use), you're going to have to license it. (Archive.org would probably fall into the free category, but they'd need to check first. I'm not extremely familiar with WMV licensing, but Microsoft's usual tendancy is to get as much money as they can.)

WMV is closed. It's proprietary. That may change in the future, but not yet. It may even become *more* closed in the future, as they tighten up the licensing. Who knows. And the European Union is trying to get Microsoft to remove Media Player and the codecs from Windows. And I think restrict them from EU residents. In which case WMV encoded content might be hard to play in Europe in a few years.

Most of us run windows. A few of us run Macs. And from what I've heard, there are now more desktop linux users than there are Mac users. Microsoft doesn't make WMV legally available to Linux users. That's one of the problems with a propeitary vs. open standard codec.

Some WMV is based on mpeg-4. (In fact, mpeg4 even has some Microsoft patents in it.) WMV is actually several encoding methods, plus several different versions (6,7,9) mpeg4 video is in there as well. In addition, with WMV9, you've also got Pro/HD which is incompatable with the previous versions.

wmv is free provided you use Windows and are a consumer. But that's still not 'open'. It's still proprietary.


As for the actual quality of mpeg-2 vs. WMV, and mpeg-4 vs. WMV. Well, that will of course depend on your own observations. It is somewhat subjective. And which particular version of WMV you use. And which implementation of mpeg-2 or mpeg4 or whatever you use. Some are better than others, and today's best is much much better than an average one from a few years ago. Not all encoders are created equal, even when following the same specs!

Tests comparing WMV9 against other modern codecs, including a test at Doom9.org (the place you referenced), call WMV9 "reasonable performance", while other tests call it "comparable to Divx 5.11" or some such when tested at the same bit rate as the other codecs.

That's **NOT** an overwhelming endorsement for a proprietary codec over an open one. And would certainly not be an endorsement for doing WMV at lower bit rates! (And in fact, codecs have improved since WMV9 came out. I don't think wmv10 makes any codec changes.)

(And no, I haven't done my own tests for two reasons. First, my own eyesight is not up to normal and never will be. Second, doing a fair, honest blind test can be a lot of work. If you are at all familiar with the listening tests that get done, those are the same kinds of things that have to be done for video. Considering so many other places have done that kind of testing and are saying that WMV9 isn't better, I see no reason to spend several days or a week trying to do my own tests.)

And although Microsoft's site lists some bit rate comparisons between mpeg-2 & WMV, I have to admit I am highly doubtful. First, that comparison is more than a little limited with no actual results presented, and second, Microsoft has a very poor history of fair comparisons (Remember 64kbps WMA supposedly being better than 128k mp3? And their promotion of WMV7?) The odds are good they chose the worst mpeg-2 encoder they could find to make their tests look as good as possible. And I don't see any comparisons of mpeg-4 vs. WMV9 That omision is pretty significant, especially considering the independant tests are saying it's no better than mpeg4.

For WMV9 Pro/HD, it is supposedly much better than the earlier versions, but not everybody has those codecs. Plus, it takes vastly more processing power to view them. People with laptops or even 2ghz systems may have problems. (Right off the top of my head, I'm not familiar with any independant tests of its quality. Just Microsoft's own claims.)

So if you have reputable independant video comparison test results that show WMV9 to be better, you need to post links to it and start correcting the testers of all the other video tests.

Maybe to you WMV9 seems better. But apparently it doesn't to a lot of other people.

Your rant about finding quality splitters etc. etc. has nothing to do with whether mpeg2/4 are open or whether WMV is better, etc. That's just indicating your preference for WMV because Microsoft has already bundled that into Windows for you. You can undoubtably find all the stuff you need for mp4, but you will need to go look for it yourself.


And I *do* certainly understand about your desire for higher quality smaller videos. 2g-4g is indeed a lot to download. Especially over dial-up that charges by the hour!

I do agree that high quality smaller sizes (say 650meg and 250meg for a full movie?) would be highly beneficial to many users. Or even a streaming version with multiple quality rates built in, like what Real does. That way you can get whatever bitrate is best for you, without any extra work by the Archive.org team.


But I'm really not so sure that WMV would be the best choice. I haven't seen any independant tests that show WMV9 etc. to be significantly / consistantly better than other modern formats at reasonable bitrates. Either formats that are open (mpeg-4 etc.) or closed (VP6, Real, etc.) Most say it's only comparable. I looked through Google for about maybe an hour and all I could find in support of Microsoft's codec being better was Microsoft's own words being repeated. I didn't see any actual test results that agreed with Microsoft or you.

And I'm not aware of any independant tests for the pro/hd codecs. Just mostly Microsoft's own claims being repeated without testing.

For ultra low bitrates, WMV9 might be good. (Don't know. Don't care.) Real has a history of tolerable quality streaming rates, too. For animation, XVid and Real both have 'cartoon' modes that are supposed to work well. And so on for other special cases.

But tests would need to be made (or existing independant tests need to be referenced to) before saying that WMV is actually better and that it should be used.

Unless somebody can give very good reasons to use a proprietary format, and back it up with independant blind tests, I really can't see any reason why Archive.org's administrators should chose it over open standards. Especially not for an archive place.


As for the Achive running on Linux... From what the FAQ talks about, it sounds more like all the videos are prepared on special hardware and on Windows boxes.

So if the maintainers of Archive.org wanted WMV, they'd do so. That they haven't suggests there are probably valid reasons why not.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: i4004 Date: Oct 11, 2004 2:05pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

[quoting is denoted by ">"]

>The specs are fully available to anybody who wants it. (Which is the difference between an open and a closed standard.)

no, the truly "open" standard should be the one that can be changed by anyone.
(but then it loses a reason to exist as a standard)
the specs availability (or lack of it) says nothing; i have specs for most formats/codecs available, but that doesn't grant me the right to change or apply(to my product) any of these standards.
but let me repeat one thing yet again; windows media is freeware while mpeg2/4 require license to be used!
(does that ring any bells? freeware versus payware?)

all of these standards are closed (defined): and you can't change them without breaking the compatibility and for mpeg2/4 you have to pay to use them!for wmv not!

there is no such thing as "open-standard", as that means any modification breaks the backward compatibility, and then standard has no meaning; standards are here to connect; not to break connections. if you have "open-standard" then you have no standard.

that is if we presumed "open" means "open to modify";
if we say that "open" means "open to apply for free", then we're not talking about mpeg's as their standards are not free to apply.
(you try to make mpeg2/4 decoder without paying the license and let's see if mpegla will ask you money or not)

>And one vendor's version of mpeg1/2/4 will work with another vendor's version of mpeg1/2/4.

this works because standard is closed, well defined and everybody respects it....and (it goes without saying) everybody that applied it payed the license to mpeg consortium!
but if you have another standard, that is presumed to work better than these standards, i don't see justification to use the "popular", and licensed format (btw. i told you .mp4 container is not popular on PC) versus microsoft's format which can be used without paying any licenses!

>Divx likes avi files where as the standard container is actually .mp4

actual container means nothing untill someone makes a decent dshow splitter which would make .mp4 viewing on a pc viable solution.
so far, we are lacking in such software.

>WMV can't claim it's open or a standard.

as i said, it's as closed as mpeg2/4 (ie nobody is allowed to modify it), as for is it standard or not..well...next generatiton dvd formats accepted wmv9 as one of the formats that can be applied as compression scheme.
this makes it an explicit standard.
you can't be more standard than that.

>And it's not free either,

oh yes it is free; i didn't payed a penny to use wmv9!
i just dloaded the encoder and the player.

>To do something else (ie: commercial use), you're going to have to license it.

now go around a bit and check licensing fees (as for commericial use) for mpeg2/4 and for wmv9; you may find out wmv is much cheaper.

but this archive is not commercial place, so there is no cost to use it;on the other hand, mpeg2/4 require licensing regardless of the usage purpose; you should pay for "private" archiving and you should pay for commercial usage;
if you didn't payed, you could get sued.

>And the European Union is trying to get Microsoft to remove Media Player and the codecs from Windows. And I think restrict them from EU residents. In which case WMV encoded content might be hard to play in Europe in a few years.

this is laughable; i decide what software i'll put on my PC; not EU!
if wmv9 is something i find nice, i'll use it.
about the bundling;it is on my interest to get as much bundled stuff (with my os) as possible; should we inspect what is linux bundling?

>Microsoft doesn't make WMV legally available to Linux users. That's one of the problems with a propeitary vs. open standard codec.

linux folks will just hack their way around that, same as they did for every other format.

>wmv is free provided you use Windows and are a consumer. But that's still not 'open'. It's still proprietary.

after all i've said, how does mpeg consortium differ from ms?
(except for a fact that mpeg is charging for all encdders/decoders, and ms is not)
mpeg's are closed standards and nobody can change them!

>Tests comparing WMV9 against other modern codecs, including a test at Doom9.org (the place you referenced), call WMV9 "reasonable performance", while other tests call it "comparable to Divx 5.11" or some such when tested at the same bit rate as the other codecs.

guys at doom9 are not condusting very low bitrate tests; they are not making video for web, but for cd or dvd storage:
wmv is best lo-bitrate codec; i never said it was best medium or high bitrate codec.
it was tweaked to be lo-bitrate codec; ms already made nice medium bitrate codec (ms-mpeg4 family of codecs)

>That's **NOT** an overwhelming endorsement for a proprietary codec over an open one.

how many times can you repeat this false statement that mpeg is "open"???
if it's open, they you go and change it!
by "open" you mean "anybody can apply it in their devices"?
oh..worry not; wmv9 has better licensing terms for that segment too!
ie it will be cheaper for manufacturer to make wmv9 chip than to make h264(aka mpeg4pt10=another mpeg consortium standard) chip.
mpeg4pt2 will die without ever really reaching the wide public.(wide public is reached via cheap hardware players)

>Considering so many other places have done that kind of testing and are saying that WMV9 isn't better, I see no reason to spend several days or a week trying to do my own tests.)

well, extremetech.com did a test and wmv9 was a winner.
i can send you few clips to demonstrate that wmv9 is better than any mpeg4 codec of today.
test is not hard to do at all; you just pick hard sequence and encode it; crappy codec looks worse than nice codec.
listening tests?
well i have organized such test few days ago;
also, i have made numerous video codec tests.
so i know exactly what i'm talking about.
i have made high bitrate, medium bitrate and lo bitrate tests, and i say for lo bitrate wmv9 should be tried.

> and second, Microsoft has a very poor history of fair comparisons

as far as i see it, as of late ms is most fair of all companies offering the advanced video codecs;
look at realvideo or vp6 claims; THAT is silly.
ms's stuff is not.

>Remember 64kbps WMA supposedly being better than 128k mp3? And their promotion of WMV7

again, in extremetech.com audio codec test wmv was a winner; and the test was as fair as any hydrogenaudio test...probably even more fair!
as for 64kbps versus 128kbps;well that needs not be a lie; depends on the mp3 codec used; i mean do you expect ms to use lame in it's tests?
a hacked codec? a copyright violation?
it can be 10x better than other mp3 codecs, but it's still illegal; didn't payed a license to mpegla!

>The odds are good they chose the worst mpeg-2 encoder they could find to make their tests look as good as possible.

they said they used "minerva's" encoder, so that's easy enough to check; it seemed to me minerva is acclaimed company.
they state that tandberg too said wmv9 is comparable to h264, so there.
ask tandberg did ms quoted them wrongly.

>And I don't see any comparisons of mpeg-4 vs. WMV9 That omision is pretty significant, especially considering the independant tests are saying it's no better than mpeg4.

wmv9 is competing against h264; mpeg4 is beaten in the lo-bitratte arena by wmv9, so they don't need to test that at all: h264 is mpeg4's succesor. (as i said, h264=mpeg4pt10, while 'old' mpeg4 was mpeg4pt2)

h264 and mpeg2 are codecs scheduled to be used in next dvd (hd) format; so wmv9 competes against those codecs, and that's what they tested.
as of lately, wmv9 can be used same as h264 and mpeg2 in dvd-hd or blu-ray discs.

>Right off the top of my head, I'm not familiar with any independant tests of its quality. Just Microsoft's own claims.)


h264 is still to young to be usefull; no nice h264 codec is publicly available at this time.
at this time, if you wanna do hd in most effective way, you don't have a choice really;
there is only wmv9.
but offcourse there are tests; go to avs forums:
those people are saying they like wmv9 for re-encoding their hdtv sources.

>So if you have reputable independant video comparison test results that show WMV9 to be better, you need to post links to it and start correcting the testers of all the other video tests.

can you link a lobitrate test (of presumed "other video tests")?
i don't think you can!
but i CAN provide a clips to prove wmv9 is better!
with ease: what codec are you suggesting is better than wmv9 on lobitrates?
i'll test it and post short clips.
you name it, and i'll test it.
if you want me to stack it against the stuff archive is now using, it'll be quite easy; i have recent mencoder and ffdshow builds that make nice mpeg4 (but mpeg4 is not enough to go against wmv9)

>Maybe to you WMV9 seems better. But apparently it doesn't to a lot of other people.

as said;these people are archiving stuff to cd/dvd media: for medium bitrates i myself am *not* using wmv9 either!
but for web content (ie lo bitrates), i said wmv9 is best choice!
for medium and high bitrates it is not!
i already said this!

>Your rant about finding quality splitters etc. etc. has nothing to do with whether mpeg2/4 are open or whether WMV is better, etc. That's just indicating your preference for WMV because Microsoft has already bundled that into Windows for you. You can undoubtably find all the stuff you need for mp4, but you will need to go look for it yourself.

ohh man, don't make it sound like you know what you're talking about.
to repeat it once again;
wmv9 is NOT my preference when i'm doing archiving for cd/dvd burning!IT IS NOT!
it is too slow encoding and the image is not as sharp as mpeg2/4 on medium/high bitrates, and it handled noise in a way i dislike!
BUT on low bitrates, nothing touches it!
because wmv9 is optimized to do lo-bitrates!
you can't make a codec thatt's excellent at all bitrates!
you must choose!
mpeg2 is excellent hi bitrate codec;mpeg4 is excellent medium bitrate codec.wmv9 is excellent lo bitrate codec.
one must use a tools that fits the purpose; no sense in making 720x480 9mbit/s wmv9 video!
no sense at all!
but 720x480@9mbit/s makes excellent mpeg2 video!

as for the splitter: mhm...do you really believe i wouldn't know a way to find it if there was one?
a usefull one.
i'm not installing 3ivx on my machine again; it will constantly remind me that some portion is shareware and i didn't payed for it.
as i said, .mp4 files are problematic to play.
quicktime player for windows is worse player i lay my eyes on.
this shows that .mp4 as a container is lacking a support right now.

>And I *do* certainly understand about your desire for higher quality smaller videos. 2g-4g is indeed a lot to download. Especially over dial-up that charges by the hour!

my target is never to dload mpeg1 or 2 versions, but something that's more compressed; so i thought best lo-bitrate codec would be better than ffmpeg's mpeg4.

>But I'm really not so sure that WMV would be the best choice. I haven't seen any independant tests that show WMV9 etc. to be significantly / consistantly better than other modern formats at reasonable bitrates.

after doing tests, i'm quite sure;
here's my email
kosta_ at net dot hr
you can contact me and tell me which codec you want tested, etc.
or you can just ask for some previous tests i did etc.
i'll be more than willing to show you quality of wmv9 at 350kbit (or less).
you can say your wish here too.

>For ultra low bitrates, WMV9 might be good. (Don't know. Don't care.)

what do you mean "don't care"?
ultra lo bitrates is all i'm talking about whole this time!
as i'm on modem and i want least possible dload size!
i'm not talking about 30min of video to be stored on 700mb cdr; why would do i talk about that here?

>For animation, XVid and Real both have 'cartoon' modes that are supposed to work well. And so on for other special cases.

real is a really nice toon-codec; but computer chronicles are not toons.

>But tests would need to be made (or existing independant tests need to be referenced to) before saying that WMV is actually better and that it should be used.

i can easily prove wmv9 is the best, but archive's standpoint won't change because of that, will it.
i mean they are runnung linux, and that's it.
i didn't know that when i was starting this thread.

>Unless somebody can give very good reasons to use a proprietary format, and back it up with independant blind tests, I really can't see any reason why Archive.org's administrators should chose it over open standards. Especially not for an archive place.

as said, i can provide such test, but who says archive.org admins will even bother to look at it.
you used word "open standard" again!
please, provide some evidence that mpeg2/4 are "open" and that they are more open than wmv9!
to me, mpeg2/4 is more closed than wmv9.
you said it yourself mpeg2 requires license fee.
this goes for mpeg4 too!

>As for the Achive running on Linux... From what the FAQ talks about, it sounds more like all the videos are prepared on special hardware and on Windows boxes.

now you're starting to talk like no admin participated here; and they did; and they equally don't understand what "open standard" means and what does it NOT mean.
and they didn't tested wmv9 (if they're running win boxes, then i don't see waht's stopping them; IT IS FREE ENCODER!)

>So if the maintainers of Archive.org wanted WMV, they'd do so. That they haven't suggests there are probably valid reasons why not.

really?
and what are they?
the "openness" argument?
no, i have proved mpeg2/4 is not open (inspect mpegla web site, and you'll understand it too!) and i have said wmv9 is cheaper even if one uses it for commercial usage, which is not the case here. for this purpose, it should be free.
(mpeg2/4 is NEVER really free!)
and as for archive.org encoders; well, i offered them to encode few episodes for them, to show them what can be done, didn't i?
looking at their mpeg4, i only see waste of bitrate; i never saw somebody dedicated same bitrate to video and audio!
computer chronicles have 48khz stereo sound(if i remember correctly) even on 1xx kbit/s streams!
why on earth?
is it rock/roll concert?
or few people talking about pc's?

btw in the end, i provide you with few links in a attempt to finally stop you from repeating "mpeg's are free standard";
http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html
( "Open Standards are free for all to implement, with no royalty or fee."

mpeg2/4 are NOT free; you need to pay license to use it;u need to pay for EVERY encoder/decoder; ask mpegla if you don't believe me
http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4v-faq.cfm )

/ivo

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ant miller Date: Nov 1, 2004 2:18am
Forum: movies Subject: Who are MPEG LA

Just for info, since it isn't obvious from their site, this is MPEG LA's own boilerplate on who they are and what they do:

MPEG LA, LLC
MPEG LA is the world leader in one-stop technology platform patent licenses, enabling users to acquire patent
rights necessary for a particular technology standard or platform from multiple patent holders in a single
transaction. Wherever an independently administered one-stop patent license would provide a convenient
marketplace alternative to assist users with implementation of their technology choices, the licensing model
pioneered and employed by MPEG LA may provide a solution. MPEG LA is not related to any standards
agency and is not an affiliate of any patent holder. MPEG LA licenses portfolios of essential patents for the
MPEG-2, IEEE 1394, DVB-T, MPEG-4 Visual, MPEG-4 Systems and AVC/H.264 (also known as MPEG-4
Part 10) standards. MPEG LA is also developing licenses for Digital Rights Management (DRM) and the
proposed VC-9 standard. For more information, please refer to http://www.mpegla.com

Please take note of the following:
MPEG LA are not patent holders nor copyright owners on any MPEG cedec standard.

The stadards are open and can be technically implemented by anyone, so long as patents are licensed.

This is different to and distinct from the closed wmv standard, which MS are perfectly free to change and update as they see fit, with no notification to any other party.

I think the considerations regarding bandwidth are valid, and for the moment wmv does offer advantages for the internet archive. However, from a longer term point of view- when bandwidth and storage becomes less of an issue, and long term retrieval prospects for data is of greater concern, I would recommend the implementation of codecs that are at least technically repeatable, and who's definition exists int he public domain.

Best regard and respect to all, this thread has been of utmost interest, and all posts have been educational and valuable to me.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: JaneLane Date: Nov 2, 2004 1:07am
Forum: movies Subject: SMTPE don't like WMV9 for new dvd disks.

This is an old thread and I don't really want to resurect it, but...

>I think the considerations regarding bandwidth
>are valid, and for the moment wmv does offer
>advantages for the internet archive.

I have seen a few recent articles about Microsoft's attempt to put the video codec in WMV 9 into upcomming dvd formats. And to make it an actual official standard.

Here is one of several articles. I saw this one last week.

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=50500181

The points that are somewhat relevant are:

1) In the future, WMV might become an official standard. (Or more accurately, the video compression in WMV9, not WMV9 itself.)

2) They are concerned about Microsoft's future plans for it, and the licensing terms.

3) According to the SMPTE (the people doing the standards), they did a considerable number of tests with the video codec in WM9 and found it to be inferior to others, such as mpeg-4. And they say that Microsoft overstated the quality of their codec.

Those people have a considerable interest in doing fair, honest video tests. They aren't some little web site doing this on a whim.

So if the people doing the standardization itself say that wm9 video compression isn't as good as other modern formats (or at least not any better), I think that pretty much ends the debate on the quality of WM9 video compression.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: i4004 Date: Nov 2, 2004 7:08am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: SMTPE don't like WMV9 for new dvd disks.

http://virtualdub.everwicked.com/index.php?act=ST&f=21&t=8120&s=9cb2373e43e4ca6914adaa76909e2c27

i'm encouraging anyone to attack anybody that makes mistakes; but first you need to prove you have a reason to attack.

jane, you don't have a reason to attack;
please try wmv9 and it will become blatantly obvious that wmv9 is the BEST lo-bitrate codec at the moment. the mpeg proponents words mean nothing here. what else were they expected to say?

i have seen(tried; remember that i do test codecs) few betas of h264, and so far, nothing impressive; wmv9 wins with ease;
(realvideo9/10 is good too, but it blurs too much)

as to the open or closed standard, i think i have already said everything.
i have said that ms will sell you a license for a cutting-edge technology cheaper than mpeg-la.
also, wmv9 capable players are starting to appear.
http://www.iodata.com/usa/products/products.php?cat=HNP&sc=AVEL&pId=AVLP2%2FDVDLA

you are persistant in skipping my explanations about the ways technologies are licensed, and instead you only talk about 'open' standards, which in itself means nothing at all.
'open' means nothing if it's expensive (look at situation with mpeg2, even though mpeg2 is pretty old); now think, what is cheaper; wmencoder9 or tmpgenc?
if vc1(wmv9) is on hd-dvd too, what was cheaper to make; wmv9(freeware encoder) or mpeg2 or h264(payware or otherwise you're breaking the law).
but ok, seems vc1 will soon be 'open' too (as standardization is nearing it's completion), so any company will be invited to make encoders/decoders in a way it wants( but according to the standards spec-sheet, same as for mpeg2), so not only ms will be making encoders/decoders. (but ms's encoders/decoders will probably be the best ones anyway)
here is a page on licensing
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/default.aspx
some chipset vendors here
http://wmlicense.smdisp.net/ic_approved/

ohh..btw. smpte DO like vc1; i have a draft of new vc1 compression standard right here on my hdd.
if they hated it, they would gave it up much sooner.

but i'm talking about wmv9 for web publishing; hd-dvd is still very distant future.

and finally, a reason why mpeg attacks ms?
hell...ms is giving it (encoders) away for free; how will mpeg make money if everybody uses ms codec; so i say; GO MICROSOFT!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: JaneLane Date: Nov 3, 2004 1:35am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: SMTPE don't like WMV9 for new dvd disks.

i4004;

>i'm encouraging anyone to attack anybody that
>makes mistakes; but first you need to prove you
>have a reason to attack

You are encouraging people to attack each other...? Not friendly. In fact, it's a good way to get banned from most forums.

>jane, you don't have a reason to attack;

I wasn't attacking. Was there anywhere in my message that I called anybody names? That I said they were stupid? That they were actingly stupidly? Etc.?

I was giving what I thought was some very good, responsible information.

Those people doing the tests are professionals. They've got a *LOT* depending on them being right.

They aren't some little web site (everwicked, doom, etc.) doing this as a hobby. They aren't some individual who does video tests for fun.

I figured you people in this thread would actually be interested in their recently announced findings, comments, and concerns.

>(realvideo9/10 is good too, but it blurs too much)

Well... from what I gather, there's a significant split in people's preferences. Some people prefer to loose fine detail, while other people prefer a bit of blocky-ness.

(And Real has released a couple new RV10 encoders to fix a few issues.)

>ohh..btw. smpte DO like vc1; i have a draft of
>new vc1 compression standard right here on my
>hdd. if they hated it, they would gave it up
>much sooner

I don't have it, but from what was being said on the web at the last vote, there was some confusion about it due to the wording. Some thought they were voting against it, while others thought they were voting for it. And after the vote, some people thought it had been defeated, while others thought it had been aproved.

It's only recently that they've actually completed their video tests. In the previous vote (for the draft you have), they were simply taking Microsoft at their word about the quality of the video codec. No tests had actually been performed.

According to the link I gave (and others), after actually doing the video tests, SMTPE decided that Microsoft had overstated the quality. That it was NOT as good as what had been claimed.

The upcoming vote will be the final official vote.


You ranted on and on about a lot of stuff that wasn't even mentioned in my message.

So for the sake of not patronizing a troll who *publicly* encourages attacks...

[the end]

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: i4004 Date: Nov 5, 2004 9:38pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: SMTPE don't like WMV9 for new dvd disks.

>You are encouraging people to attack each >other...? Not friendly. In fact, it's a good way >to get banned from most forums.

you're attacking ms.
i said i'm encouraging attacks if they are well-founded, yes.
you can attack me anytime you see me making mistakes.

>I was giving what I thought was some very good, responsible information.

you have never tested a codec in your life, and you feel invited to talk about this?
why?

>Those people doing the tests are professionals. >They've got a *LOT* depending on them being >right.

where are those smpte tests you're talking about?
please link those!

>I figured you people in this thread would >actually be interested in their recently >announced findings, comments, and concerns.

nope; i'm not interested in mpeg vs ms fights; not at all, and nobody should be.

>Well... from what I gather, there's a >significant split in people's preferences. Some >people prefer to loose fine detail, while other >people prefer a bit of blocky-ness.


i thought people prefer sharp images with no artefacts (?)
you said some people prefer blurry images, and others prefer some blocking: that's nonsense.
the goal is sharpness and no-artefacts!
if somebody says he likes blurry images, then you can ask yourself is that person sane.

ok, you do few movies with both, and THEN tell me what YOU saw.

>It's only recently that they've actually completed their video tests.

please, link the tests.

>According to the link I gave (and others), after actually doing the video tests, SMTPE decided that Microsoft had overstated the quality. That it was NOT as good as what had been claimed.

that is the mpeg statement; what did you expect?

>You ranted on and on about a lot of stuff that wasn't even mentioned in my message.

i wasn't replying to your message alone.
this is not an email, you know.
it's a public forum, and i adressed few other messages too.

>So for the sake of not patronizing a troll who *publicly* encourages attacks...

let it be noted that i wasn't the one calling others names, but you did.
you can call me anything you like, but i will never offend you in a way you just did to me.

>[the end]
we can continue after you actually test wmv9 versus all other codecs, and tell su what you saw.
btw. jane, can you do that?
can you actually test a codec, or you can only attack ms for no good reason?

/ivo

This post was modified by i4004 on 2004-11-06 05:36:20

This post was modified by i4004 on 2004-11-06 05:38:39

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: FP Date: Oct 5, 2004 4:47am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

Some sites - such as this one - simply demand broadband for effective use. I never downloaded anything form archive.org until I got broadband a couple of years ago. Trying to accomodate dial-up users with unusually specific format demands would not seem to be the best use of this non-profit organization's resources.

At least that's the way I sees it...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: i4004 Date: Oct 5, 2004 5:24am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

>Trying to accomodate dial-up users with >unusually specific format demands would not seem >to be the best use of this non-profit >organization's resources.

"unusually specific"?
heh...
no, it is just a reccomendation (about the codec) that was given by me, a person that tried a number of different codecs/formats, and concluded that wmv9 would be a better idea than ffmpeg+mpeg4
(i'm talking about the lowest bitrates you're offering)

if you're suggesting i'm a microsoft man, you're wrong; i'm just using the best codec available (ohh, and btw. i'm not using wmv9 much, as i'm storing my video as mpeg4.avi on dvdr media (so i need not that much bitrate saving..and the wmv9 is very slow encoder too!), but if i was providing video over the internet, i would use it exclusively)

but heh...this would require re-encoding the whole thing once again, so i don't really expect that you'll do that, but i have gave you a suggestion, for the future, to save bandwidth; non-profit org, or not, there is no justification to bitrate wastage..


/btw. the commercials are still in the cc episodes;
why?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rgs_uk Date: Oct 12, 2004 6:02pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

I've done a comparision test of MPEG1, MPEG2, Real, WMV, DivX and XVid at a low-bitrate (512Kbps):

http://www.g7uk.com/video-test.shtml

To my eyes the Real and WMV come out best and (hate to say it) the Real is best of all, but only by the tiniest bit.

The great advantage of MPEG1 is that it is widespread and free. To get similar quality to WMV9 or Real9, with MPEG1 it needs a file that is pretty much double the size. But, for relatively low-bitrate clips, that may be a price worth paying (for the webmaster and surfer) for something that is universally playable?

IMO it's a waste of time building an archive of clips aimed at 56k modem users. The vast majority are not going to download videos of any length and streaming at 56k is so poor to be virtually unwatchable. I say don't bother. It's like having a unicycle and complaining that you can't travel at 80mph on the motorway. Sorry, but you can't expect to and must take a more leisurely route (in other words stick to text and image content) ;-P Broadband is on the way for all eventually.

On the other hand, a 2Gb MPEG2 file is huge on the 512k broadband connection that is widespread currently and is also costly to the webmaster in terms of bandwidth used.

Looking at the peer-to-peer file-sharing services, I see many files around the 600-900k mark. That gives some idea of how people are prepared to trade size off against quality. I'd like the big high-quality 1.5Gb/2Gb files to stay (for people who want to edit etc.) but I'd also like there to be something in MPeg4/XVid/WMV around the 700Mb mark.

The ISP industry is desperate to get as many surfers as possible off unlimited bandwidth and onto capped (1Gb a MONTH????). It's something that has to be resisted at all costs. Otherwise it is going to kill online video of any quality for obvious reasons.

This post was modified by rgs_uk on 2004-10-13 01:02:12

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: A l a n Date: Jan 30, 2005 12:08am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: why not wmv as a format/codec

Very nice work rgs_uk,

Of course, your results are most valid for low bit rates (512kbs). None of the video is of high enough quality that I wouldn't prefer downloading it at a higher bit-rate, even though it would take longer.

In any case, I think the way to address this issue without loading the archive down too much with work is to allow people to upload converted formats. Such formats could be marked with a "user-converted" symbol, and people would be allowed to vote on whether the video appeared to be true to the original file, aside from format conversion. I'd be happy to help out the archive, for instance, by converting a few movies to xvid format with some of my spare CPU cycles.